比较放射科医生和放射技师对腰背痛 MRI 转诊的评估:来自挪威两家影像中心的启示。

IF 2.5 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
C.C. Chilanga , M. Heggelund , E. Kjelle
{"title":"比较放射科医生和放射技师对腰背痛 MRI 转诊的评估:来自挪威两家影像中心的启示。","authors":"C.C. Chilanga ,&nbsp;M. Heggelund ,&nbsp;E. Kjelle","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2024.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the differences in MRI referral assessments for low back pain (LBP) between radiologists and in-house trained radiographers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This is the second part of a retrospective study where MRI referrals for LBP conducted within two imaging centres in Norway were assessed for justification and referral quality. This study examines differences in how the recruited assessors (four radiologists and two radiographers) evaluated the referrals. The collected data was sorted in Microsoft Excel version 2021. Stata Statistical Software (Release 18) was used for data analysis. Mixed model analysis was used to compare the radiographers and radiologists' assessment of justification and referral quality. Gwet's agreement coefficient AC1/AC2 was used to determine the variation of agreements between the assessors in justification, and Gwet's AC2 between the assessor in referral quality. Kappa statistics was used to assess the interrater reliability between the two professions. A p-value of &lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total n = 300 patients' MRI referrals for LBP from the two imaging centres were collected and assessed. The two radiographers and one radiologist assessed 75 % of the referrals as justified, while the other radiologists had an overall justification rate ranging from 50 to 60 %. In general, radiographers more frequently assigned referrals as being of good and intermediate quality compared to radiologists. The study showed a statistically significant difference (p &lt; .001) between radiographers and radiologists ‘assessment of justification and quality of MRI referrals for LBP.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Radiographers assessed a higher proportion of referrals as justified and of good quality compared to radiologists, highlighting the need for targeted training to enhance radiographers' referral assessment skills.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>Radiographers are assigned tasks to justify imaging in radiology departments; however, targeted training is essential to ensure consistent and accurate referral assessments, ultimately enhancing patient care and optimising the use of resources.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"31 1","pages":"Pages 290-296"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing radiologists and radiographers’ assessment of MRI referrals for low back pain: Insights from two imaging centres in Norway\",\"authors\":\"C.C. Chilanga ,&nbsp;M. Heggelund ,&nbsp;E. Kjelle\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.radi.2024.12.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the differences in MRI referral assessments for low back pain (LBP) between radiologists and in-house trained radiographers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This is the second part of a retrospective study where MRI referrals for LBP conducted within two imaging centres in Norway were assessed for justification and referral quality. This study examines differences in how the recruited assessors (four radiologists and two radiographers) evaluated the referrals. The collected data was sorted in Microsoft Excel version 2021. Stata Statistical Software (Release 18) was used for data analysis. Mixed model analysis was used to compare the radiographers and radiologists' assessment of justification and referral quality. Gwet's agreement coefficient AC1/AC2 was used to determine the variation of agreements between the assessors in justification, and Gwet's AC2 between the assessor in referral quality. Kappa statistics was used to assess the interrater reliability between the two professions. A p-value of &lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total n = 300 patients' MRI referrals for LBP from the two imaging centres were collected and assessed. The two radiographers and one radiologist assessed 75 % of the referrals as justified, while the other radiologists had an overall justification rate ranging from 50 to 60 %. In general, radiographers more frequently assigned referrals as being of good and intermediate quality compared to radiologists. The study showed a statistically significant difference (p &lt; .001) between radiographers and radiologists ‘assessment of justification and quality of MRI referrals for LBP.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Radiographers assessed a higher proportion of referrals as justified and of good quality compared to radiologists, highlighting the need for targeted training to enhance radiographers' referral assessment skills.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>Radiographers are assigned tasks to justify imaging in radiology departments; however, targeted training is essential to ensure consistent and accurate referral assessments, ultimately enhancing patient care and optimising the use of resources.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiography\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 290-296\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817424003614\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817424003614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究旨在评估放射科医生和内部培训的放射技师在腰痛(LBP) MRI转诊评估方面的差异。方法:这是回顾性研究的第二部分,在挪威的两个成像中心进行了腰痛的MRI转诊,评估了理由和转诊质量。本研究考察了招募的评估员(四名放射科医师和两名放射科医师)评估转诊患者的差异。收集的数据在Microsoft Excel版本2021中进行排序。使用Stata统计软件(Release 18)进行数据分析。采用混合模型分析比较放射科医师和放射科医师对理由和转诊质量的评价。采用Gwet的协议系数AC1/AC2来确定评估者之间在理由上的协议差异,以及Gwet的AC2来确定评估者之间在转诊质量上的协议差异。采用Kappa统计来评估两个专业之间的互译信度。结果的p值:收集并评估了来自两个成像中心的共n = 300例LBP患者的MRI转诊。两名放射技师和一名放射科医生评估了75%的转诊是合理的,而其他放射科医生的总体合理化率在50%到60%之间。一般来说,与放射科医生相比,放射科医生更频繁地分配良好和中等质量的转诊。结论:与放射科医生相比,放射技师对转诊的评估比例更高,认为转诊是合理的和质量良好的,这突出表明需要有针对性的培训,以提高放射技师的转诊评估技能。对实践的影响:分配给放射技师的任务是证明放射科的成像;然而,有针对性的培训是必不可少的,以确保一致和准确的转诊评估,最终提高病人的护理和优化资源的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing radiologists and radiographers’ assessment of MRI referrals for low back pain: Insights from two imaging centres in Norway

Introduction

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in MRI referral assessments for low back pain (LBP) between radiologists and in-house trained radiographers.

Methods

This is the second part of a retrospective study where MRI referrals for LBP conducted within two imaging centres in Norway were assessed for justification and referral quality. This study examines differences in how the recruited assessors (four radiologists and two radiographers) evaluated the referrals. The collected data was sorted in Microsoft Excel version 2021. Stata Statistical Software (Release 18) was used for data analysis. Mixed model analysis was used to compare the radiographers and radiologists' assessment of justification and referral quality. Gwet's agreement coefficient AC1/AC2 was used to determine the variation of agreements between the assessors in justification, and Gwet's AC2 between the assessor in referral quality. Kappa statistics was used to assess the interrater reliability between the two professions. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total n = 300 patients' MRI referrals for LBP from the two imaging centres were collected and assessed. The two radiographers and one radiologist assessed 75 % of the referrals as justified, while the other radiologists had an overall justification rate ranging from 50 to 60 %. In general, radiographers more frequently assigned referrals as being of good and intermediate quality compared to radiologists. The study showed a statistically significant difference (p < .001) between radiographers and radiologists ‘assessment of justification and quality of MRI referrals for LBP.

Conclusion

Radiographers assessed a higher proportion of referrals as justified and of good quality compared to radiologists, highlighting the need for targeted training to enhance radiographers' referral assessment skills.

Implications for practice

Radiographers are assigned tasks to justify imaging in radiology departments; however, targeted training is essential to ensure consistent and accurate referral assessments, ultimately enhancing patient care and optimising the use of resources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiography
Radiography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
34.60%
发文量
169
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: Radiography is an International, English language, peer-reviewed journal of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. Radiography is the official professional journal of the College of Radiographers and is published quarterly. Radiography aims to publish the highest quality material, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy and oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信